Internet Archive's in-browser bookreader "theater" requires JavaScript to be enabled. It appears your browser does not have it turned on. Please see your browser settings for this feature.

Human–wildlife conflict and local community attitudes towards wildlife conservation in Konta Special District, southwest Ethiopia

by: Temesgen, Zelalem; Biru, Yihew; Gibru, Amare; Hundie, Kebebew

Publication date: 2025-9-5
Usage: Attribution 4.0 International
Topics: Attitude, human–wildlife conflict, Konta Special District, wildlife conservation
Publisher: Pensoft Publishers
Collection: biodiversity
Contributor: Pensoft Publishers
Language: English
Rights: https://biodiversitylibrary.org/permissions
Rights-holder: Copyright held by individual article author(s).
Volume: 23
Item Size: 18.1M

Abstract: Understanding local communities’ attitudes towards wildlife conservation is important for policymakers and conservationists in implementing sustainable wildlife conservation strategies. The present study was undertaken to assess local communities’ attitudes towards wildlife conservation and the types of human–wildlife conflict (HWC) in the Konta Special District (KSD). A total of 95 household respondents were randomly selected for questionnaire interviews from two study kebeles. In addition, focus group discussions (FGD) and personal observations were used to collect qualitative data. Descriptive statistics and the chi-square test were applied to analyze the data. Overall, 51.6% of the respondents reported both crop damage and livestock depredation as the main types of HWC. The respondents ranked baboons (95.8%) and monkeys (65.5%) as the principal wildlife responsible for property damage. Habitat loss (75.6%) was reported as the main threat to wildlife existence. A total of 91.6% of the respondents expressed a positive attitude towards wildlife conservation, and there was no statistically significant difference between study kebeles, sex, or education level of respondents. Guarding (75.8%) was identified as the dominant traditional method used to reduce damage. Development activities should not compromise wildlife conservation goals. Employing effective protection methods and providing alternative livelihoods such as ecotourism, beekeeping, and livestock fattening were recommended to ensure coexistence between humans and wildlife and to promote sustainable development in the KSD.
Addeddate: 2025-09-10 23:45:59
Bhl_virtual_titleid: 210883
Bhl_virtual_volume: v.23 (2025)
Call number: 10_3897_biorisk_23_163073
Call-number: 10_3897_biorisk_23_163073
Foldoutcount: 0
Genre: article
Identifier: humanwildlifeco23teme
Identifier-ark: ark:/13960/s27xr87pm53
Identifier-bib: 10_3897_biorisk_23_163073
Identifier-doi: 10.3897/biorisk.23.163073
Ocr: tesseract 5.3.0-6-g76ae
Ocr_detected_lang: en
Ocr_detected_lang_conf: 1.0000
Ocr_detected_script: Latin
Ocr_detected_script_conf: 1.0000
Ocr_module_version: 0.0.21
Ocr_parameters: -l eng
Page_number_confidence: 0
Page_number_module_version: 1.0.5
Page_range: 63-77
Pages: 15
Pdf_degraded: invalid-jp2-headers
Pdf_module_version: 0.0.25
Possible copyright status: In copyright. Digitized with the permission of the rights holder.
Ppi: 300
Source: BioRisk 23
Year: 2025